Elected as the new Grand Chief of the Crees of Iyiyuuschii, it is Ted Moses’s job to bring Crees into the next millennium. He is not a man without experience. Moses was a former Grand Chief and the Crees’ ambassador to the United Nations. He met the Pope when then-Grand Chief Billy Diamond was invited by the Vatican.
Moses talked about the Grand Council, the Cree Nation and what he felt they would face going into the new millennium. It was a time of change as former Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come declined to run again after serving for 12 years. Along with Coon Come, long-time Waskaganish Chief Billy Diamond and Eastmain’s Kenneth Gilpin also didn’t enter the electoral race. In all, five communities changed chiefs and there is a new Grand Chief and Deputy Grand Chief. It is a time of change that most Crees must be wondering about. Moses was frank about what he thinks are the priorities of the new Grand Council.
The Nation: Were you surprised that Matthew didn’t run again?
Ted Moses: I wasn’t surprised at all. After being in office for 12 years, I thought it might be time for him to reconsider whether he should run or not. If he had run, it wouldn’t have been a surprise, and it wasn’t one when he didn’t.
Going into the new millennium the Crees have a lot on their plate. I guess one of the most obvious is the forestry court case. Could you give us a breakdown on that?
The forestry case I personally believe is an assertion of Cree rights that really should have been done some time ago. It should have been done when it became known that Quebec had this massive forestry plan. Had we decided to take the issue head on, who knows, we might not be in court today. We might have achieved something out of court.
Quebec and the forestry companies are moving away from what was decided under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. There is an erwironmental-review process under Section 22 of the Agreement, and there is a definite attempt to work around the Crees and avoid having to address the rights under the agreement. Had Quebec in the past been more respectful in addressing that agreement, the relationship might have been different.
When Quebec wasn’t responding to the Cree requests, when the whole forestry industry went off on their own and didn’t respect the rights of the Crees or environmental obligations, we had no choice but to assert our rights before the government. If that government doesn’t respond or respect those rights, then we have to take advantage of other processes that are available. When the discussion didn’t go anywhere, we had to file legal proceedings. It’s a process that’s available to anyone who’s living in a free, democratic society. I hope we are living in that type of society. The Crees attempted to engage Quebec in a discussion to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement on forestry. Unfortunately, there was a huge shortfall in what Quebec was offering and what the Crees were willing to accept.
We wonder whether Quebec’s good faith in settling this out of court was there in the first place. Those discussions speak for themselves. When there are no negotiations, then we have to continue with the courts. On the other hand, we haven’t shut off any avenues or possibilities of a negotiated agreement on forestry if the two groups can come together and agree on what basis those discussions will happen. We are more than prepared to do that.
The Grand Council placed an advertisement in the November issue of Roll Call, a newspaper in Washington, D.C., serving mostly U.S. politicians. Does this mean Crees are prepared to take the forestry issue into international waters, much as they did with Hydro-Quebec’s Great Whale project?
Yes, definitely. Being in court is relatively quiet and nobody hears about it unless you’re actually in the room. Other than that, the public doesn’t hear about it beyond the odd story in the papers. Now we have to create some momentum, some pressure. The public has to be aware of what is happening in regards to forestry and how our Cree rights are being affected. The market where the forestry products are being sold has to be made aware of where the forestry products come from and how they affect the Crees, their territory, the animals and the rights that are constitutionally protected. People have to be aware of why we are in court and what’s our point. A public campaign is necessary, and if that means the market is outside of Quebec, then we have to take it there. If it becomes an international issue, then we have to make it an international issue.
In the past, there seemed to be disunity over this campaign as some communities weren’t as affected as others. Is there the political will and leadership in all nine communities to do this campaign?
The leadership is there. There is new leadership, which is vibrant and has the spirit of wanting to get things done. Most of the leaders who were elected campaigned on the principle of unity, and those who did got in.
The communities want to work together. They talk about the days when we first engaged in the fight to protect Iyiyuuschii and the rights of the Crees. We were effective and it worked. For me those elections expressed that the Crees wanted to present a united front against the government and against Crown corporations.
Unity can be a very powerful and strong thing you can have, but it doesn’t come about overnight. You have to nurture it and protect it. You have to remind everybody about it.
It’s something we are going to work on for the next three years, but the spirit is there. Whether it’s a project in the north that affects northern communities or a development in the south that affects southern communities, it’s all Iyiyuuschii, and we all have an interest because it affects our rights as a collective.
One of the outcomes of the forestry case was that Quebec suddenly put aside the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding Agreement. Now, Quebec Indian Affairs Minister Guy Chevrette is trying to say the agreement was never off. What is your response to this?
We have a letter filed that was sent by Chevrette himself in February of this year. The letter says you have to choose between negotiation or litigation. Since the Crees decided to institute proceedings against Quebec and the forestry companies, then the negotiations on the MOU are suspended. Unfortunately, it is an interference in the democratic right to choose what peaceful means you want to use to have your rights respected and recognized. For me, it’s unacceptable to say to the Cnees you have to choose between the two.
There are hundreds of companies in Quebec that litigate and enter into negotiations. I don’t hear Quebec saying they have to choose whether to litigate or negotiate. It happens all the time, and at the end of the day when people are happy with the results of negotiations, the litigation becomes the final thing you work out. When you have an agreement you agree to withdraw your litigation. Until an agreement is made, you take advantage of the legal recourse. Why should the Crees be any different?
Do you see another court challenge taking place to bring back to the table the MOU Agreement?
Well, a court challenge isn’t at the forefront of the decision-making process, although it’s a recourse that is available. The instructions I have given to the negotiator with Quebec are to seek to clarify what is the status of the MOU implementation agreement, and to ensure the flow of funds under the agreement. There is an agreement for $132 million or so, and up to now Quebec owes us about $65 million. Also, we have told them to look for funds to flow by way of grants, as opposed to the bands having to seek loans through a financial institution to be guaranteed by Quebec.
We have some serious difficulties because that is putting the bands in a deficit situation. The planning for some of the projects, especially the multi-year projects, is in a situation where circumstances don’t allow you to complete the project. So you have a project that is only half-completed.
The idea is to try to resolve the MOU through discussions, but not something that is long and drawn out. We want to know where we stand in the next few weeks. We will attempt to meet people in Quebec. We’ll see where we take it from there. At this point, legal challenges are not what we are looking at. We want to resolve this through discussions as soon as possible.
Minister Chevrette has also introduced Bill 65, which says all negotiations between the Quebec government, its agencies and departments and any First Nations agencies, communities, organizations and persons must be overseen and approved by the Ministry of Indian Affairs for Quebec. What do you think of this bill?
Well, I think the bill is inconsistent with the James Bay Agreement, and it puts the approval process and consideration of agreements in the hands of one person. One minister doesn’t necessarily have all of the expertise, the people or the resources to be able to look at those types of agreements.
The James Bay Agreement allows us to have relationships with different departments in Quebec on matters pertaining to education with the Minister of Education, health with the Minister of Health, environment with the Minster of the Environment, and so on.
The agreement provides for certain amendments, which would be carried out with the consent of the two parties, Quebec and the Crees. This means the concerned department or ministry would be involved in that type of arrangement with the Crees. With the way the bill is being drafted up, it puts everything – the entire approval process – under one ministry. Therefore, it has removed our relationship with the other departments to one department. I don’t know whether that would be workable or not. We have already had experiences in the 1980s where one civil servant streamlined everything and it went through him in deciding which project or who gets paid. It doesn’t really serve the purpose of the relationship and what was intended. We’re not accepting that type of relationship.
If Quebec wants to do that with the other First Nations, that’s between them and the other First Nations. But so far as the Crees are concerned, there is already a legal arrangement, which is contemplated under the agreement, and we’ll be seeking an exemption from that bill for the Crees.
What would you say is the current relationship between the Cree communities and the Quebec government?
It’s not a rosy situation. It falls short of the spirit we hoped to bring about in 1975 when the agreement was signed. Right now, we are at odds with Quebec. As far as the Crees are concerned, it is a question of them protecting their rights. You take that position with any government that wishes to erode Cree rights. As far as protection of Iyiyuuschii is concerned, one would hope by this time there was a better understanding of where Crees stand. Though we have a better defined relationship under the agreement, the old philosophy is still there of denying and excluding Native peoples from the benefits of development and the benefits of the extraction of natural ; resources from the territories of Aboriginal peoples, and in the case the Crees.
I’m sure on paper it seems like a lot of money is being paid out to the Crees, but Quebec has gotten rich extracting these resources.
Crees are saying, let’s not exclude the people living up there – let’s try to develop a better relationship. I think the relationship would be improved by that. When the general philosophy and strategy is to exclude Aboriginal people – like they do all across parts of Canada and the world – it’s no wonder relationships are difficult to maintain.
People feel they are being denied certain things which belong to them or to which they have a right. It’s like in forestry with the clearcutting and all the logging with the resources going down south; in the communities, there are young people who could be trained and there is a need for jobs. There is a definite need for improvements in the conditions in the communities, but you see all the potential of that going out.
How about the relationship between the Crees and the federal government. Is it any better than with Quebec?
I would have to say that at least on the federal side, we have a table. But, here again, there’s always an attempt to erode the rights of the Crees. Even if you are in negotiations, there’s always an attempt to slip in a clause they’ll catch you with. They’ll try to subject you to things you’ve seen in other parts of Canada. There is a policy to terminate negotiated agreements between First Nations and Canada. I’ve seen it in northern Manitoba. There is a main agreement, and the government purports to go through the implementation process – but in the implementation process you have to give up a lot. First, you agree to extinguish the first agreement; then you agree to release the government from all the rights and benefits you’ve negotiated and worked so hard for. The end result is you’ve given up anything from the past that you’ve fought so hard for.
These are the types of pressures the Crees are under. We take on certain challenges. We take the government to task on certain issues like human rights, the right of the individual to enjoy and dispose of the natural resources of the land, the principle of self-determination. It’s not an easy task. I can’t say the relationship is what we all hope it would be. It could be a better relationship, but you are always struggling, fighting. You have to never give up – you can’t. You start to relax, and you know the government will try to do something. The protection of Cree rights is becoming the protection of Aboriginal rights. It’s a greater challenge than it has been in the past. Of course, we have become more knowledgeable and understanding of how the governments work.
It’s gotten very complex and the issues are far-reaching – more than they have been in the past.
What do you see as the greatest challenge for the Crees in the new millennium?
There are all sorts of challenges in meeting the expectations of the Crees in providing opportunities to young people, and improving the quality of life in the communities. All of those relate to exercising Cree rights and getting the governments to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. There is now a desire to pursue and exercise our right of self-determination. Cree governance is going to be a big issue among the Crees in the new millennium.
Sovereignty is one of the issues that all Native people face in Quebec. The Crees led the way in having their own referendum which said in the event Quebec separates they wish to stay with Canada. Are the Crees prepared to handle this challenge again?
Yes, definitely. There is no question about it. It’s not a challenge we engage in as something to put on the table. We’re caught in a debate because of Quebec’s political stance in its relationship with Canada. We engage in that because if we don’t we are not speaking about Cree rights. If it heats up, we’ll take a position and that position hasn’t changed.
What do you hope to see in the new millennium for the Crees?
That’s a tough question since I don’t have a crystal ball. If the Crees stand together united and continue to elect good leadership, a lot of the efforts we’ve made in the past will come into season. It’s possible we can make headway on certain things. Nothing will happen, though, if we do nothing. We have to be a player to some extent. What happens is largely dependent on what we, as Crees, want to take on as a challenge. It’s what the people desire for the future. If the Crees want to live in communities where life has improved and there are opportunities, we will have vibrant communities. But that will depend on the Crees and their leadership. This won’t come about if we are content to wait for regular programs.
Crees are going to have to assert their rights much more, and be innovative in the solutions. We have to be far more innovative and look for solutions and arrangements that are much more long-term benefits, rather than short-term. That will be how we can sustain ourselves as a nation. We will have to assert Cree rights over water, forestry, mineral and other resources in use. We have to make sure the Crees receive benefits. It’s not really a question of money but what other means you have to improve the quality of life. Certainly not by exclusion and denial.
